Before Labor Day, my 6-year old daughter went to the opening day of first grade and came back with a school lunch menu. In a model of transparency, the school provides nutritional information on those meals. An opening day lunch option – shrimp ‘poppers’ with ‘cheesy’ rice and fruit or apple sauce – provided a whopping 50 % of my daughter’s recommended allowance of fat for the day.

Perhaps this helps explain why more than 25 million children are now obese or overweight.

Unfortunately, last week’s report from the Trust for America’s Health points out that we are getting fatter!

There is a lot more that proactive Farm Bill policies could do to encourage more nutritious diets and help the environment.

Let’s start with kids – its not acceptable that today’s generation may be the first not to outlive their parents.

Congress must do more to encourage healthy eating choices in our schools. For starters school lunches – which are heavily subsidized by USDA – should look a lot more like the fruit- and vegetable-heavy food pyramid USDA pushes. Senator Menendez from New Jersey and Senator Stabenow from Michigan have already proposing giving USDA further direction do so. In particular, Senator Menendez’s bill expands support for programs that expand the connections between a healthy environment and healthy foods. Too many farmers offering to help improve the environment are turned away because USDA lacks the money to partner with them.

The Senate should also expand the Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program which provides free healthy snacks to school children. Run as a pilot under the 2002 Farm Bill, the program has been credited with getting kids excited about fruits and vegetables and improving the learning environment.

Unfortunately, the House of Representatives provided only enough funding for 35 schools per state to start new healthy snack programs. This will help less than 1 percent of the 94,000 public schools in America. The Senate should do better.

And too often, farmers are shut out from providing healthy local foods to schools in their own communities. Local farmers and children would benefit by expanding the ‘farm-to-Cafeteria’ program. This program helps schools set up purchasing arrangements with small local farms and retrofit school cafeterias to handle actual cooking as opposed to just reheating pre-packaged meals. Listen to Berkeley California school ‘lunch lady’ Ann Cooper talk about getting a healthy lunch in front of every child. Such local purchasing arrangement also helps keep local farms in business and provide open space and other benefits Americans value.

Senate Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has announced that the Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program will be a priority for his Committee’s Farm Bill along with other children’s health and conservation priorities. This should include increased funding to help farmers convert to organic production, reducing the use of chemicals that end up in our rivers, lakes and bays.

There are 25 million children whose healthy future and environment depends in part upon the success of these programs.

Farm Bill conservation programs are more important than ever as farmers face increasing pressure to produce more and more corn to feed America’s growing appetite for ethanol.

Today, the Chesapeake Bay Commission – a multistate commission led by the state governments of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania - issued a new report on how rapid expansion of up to 300,000 new acres of corn production in the Chesapeake watershed could add another 5 million pounds of nitrogen pollution to the waters of the Bay. (Already in 2007, 160,000 acres of corn were planted in the watershed.) Corn is fertilized with an average of 150 lbs of nitrogen per acre. Much of this runs off into nearby water bodies because corn absorbs only 40 - 60 percent of that amount.

However, the Commission found that if cover crops were planted on these new and existing row crop acres those cover crops would reduce nitrogen flowing into the Bay by an estimated 17 million pounds. That’s a lot of nitrogen kept out of the Bay just by planting grass and other covers on winter fields!

Conservation programs like EQIP – the Environmental Quality Incentives Program – help farmers pay the costs of installing cover crops. However, two of three farmers applying for EQIP funding in the Chesapeake region and nationally are turned away because the programs lack enough funds. The Senate should expand funding for these and other conservation programs by at least $6.5 billion over 5 years to help farmers help the environment.

The report notes that cellulosic and other biofuels have even more promise for the environment of the Chesapeake.

Cellulosic biofuels and some technologies that convert animal waste to fuel have great potential to improve water quality while providing a climate-friendly fuel source for farmers and local citizens. Many Chesapeake counties are some of the top poultry producers in America.  Converting chicken waste into fuel could kill two birds with one stone – it reduces smelly waste that farmers cannot currently find enough uses for and can provide new revenue for farms. Another fuel – cow manure – is providing ‘cow power’ in Vermont.

Innovative renewable energy programs are already set up in the Farm Bill to fund the most environmentally beneficial renewable energy technologies. The Senate should fund Section 9003 and Section 9006 programs to help catalyze new energy development in the Chesapeake and nationwide.

Today's post is by Timothy Male, a senior ecologist at Environmental Defense.

A lot of stories have focused on the fact that the current Farm Bill expires on September 30th. What if Congress doesn’t pass a new Farm Bill by then? Will there be panic in the streets? Will agriculture end as we know it? Does Congress have to pass an emergency “extension” of the current farm bill – perhaps one as long as two years — as many commodity groups have argued?

The simple answer is ‘no.’

There may be a few readers out there who will be surprised by this –- but Congress has actually failed to pass legislation on time before.

In the case of the Farm Bill, Congress has missed the deadline many times before as this report [PDF] from the Congressional Research Service makes clear.

It happened in 1981, 1985, 1990, and 1995 — in fact, the only time Congress turned in its homework on time since the early days of the Carter Administration was in 2002. Usually Congress only missed the deadline by a couple of months, but in 1995, more than 6 months passed before a new bill was signed into law.

If the current farm bill expires before Congress completes work on the 2007 Farm Bill, things will pretty much go on as usual. As the CRS report points out, the current farm bill’s commodity programs will continue to cover the 2007 crops, even if they are harvested and marketed later this year.

Farmers planting winter wheat may want to see the policies that will cover the 2008 crop finalized sooner than growers of other commodities, but this ruminant sees no reason to reason to hurry home from pasture.

Congress still has plenty of time to get the details right and pass a 2007 Farm Bill that serves American agriculture, consumers and the environment more equitably.

The Ruminant is not a happy cow.

The Farm Bill crafted by the House Agriculture Committee and mistakenly embraced by Democratic leaders would provide little new funding to protect California's grasslands from development.

That puts us in a bad mooooooood.

Grasslands are under siege. In the last 20 years, more than 14 million acres of pasture — or roughly 10 percent of all pasture in America – have been converted to grow corn or condos. California's grasslands are especially threatened by pressure from development.

But, the "reform" Farm Bill supported by some Californians would provide less than $300 million to protect grasslands from development.

By contrast, the Farm Bill that will come to the floor this week would provide more than $30 billion to subsidize large commercial farmers in the Midwest during a time of record prices and net worth.

The Ruminant would have to be smoking grass to support a Farm Bill that provides unlimited subsidies to 99.9 percent of America's farmers and that would continue to reject thousands of farmers and ranchers offering to protect grasslands. 

Seems like some "leaders" are more interested in cash cows that California cows.  Fortunately, House reformers will offer amendments to increase funding for the Grasslands Reserve Program.

That makes California cows happy.

This week, 348 members of the House of Representatives will have a clear choice:

• to vote for family farmers, taxpayers, hungry Americans, economic prosperity and the environment, or
• to vote for unlimited subsidies for large commercial farmers, to raise taxes, to deny food assistance to the hungry, to invite trade wars, and to turn away farmers offering to help the environment.

It's that simple. Because that's how many legislators would better serve their districts by voting for the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment.

The choice could not be clearer.

The Farm Bill crafted by the House Agriculture Committee and mistakenly supported by some Democratic leaders would:

• perpeuate a farm subsidy system that allows the largest commercial farmers to collect two-thirds of all subsidies, driving their small neighbors out of business. 
• help feed some hungry Americans but tax other Americans to pay the cost.
• expand subsidies that increase hunger in developing nations and that violate our trade agreements, inviting new trade barriers.
• provide little new funding to reward farmily farmers offering to share the cost of a healthier environment.

By contrast, the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment to be offered by a group of House reformers and supported by business, religious, anti-hunger, environmental, anti-tax and health leaders would:

• provide a safety net that helps family farmers, not corporate farmers.
• provide $6 billion over five years to combat hunger — without taxing other Americans.
• Bring our farm subsidies into compliance with our trade obligations and reduce hunger overseas.
• Reward — not reject — farmers when they offer to share the cost of a healthier environment.

Legislators have a clear choice.

For most, a vote against the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment will be a vote against their the family farmers, taxpayers, the hungry, and the environment.

We need a farm safety net as modern and as entreprenuerial as our farmers. 

A farm safety net crafted in response to the Dust Bowl and the Depression is no longer needed when farmers have not only joined the middle class but have also joined the investor class.

Farmers are enjoying record prices and have average household income of more than $80,000 a year — or nearly twice as much as the average American household. The large commercial farmers who collect the lion's share of farm subsidies have farm household income greater than $270,000 a year. According to USDA, the net worth of our largest commercial farms is, on average, more than $2.2 million.

Unfortunately, the safety net proposed by the House Agriculture Committee ignores these and other important developments, such as a federal ethanol mandate that has caused corn and soybean prices to soar. 

Spending $26 billion on "direct" subsidy payments — which are linked to past production, not market prices – provides many large commercial farmers a security blanket, not a safety net.  And, linking farm subsidies to rising and falling prices ignores the impacts of droughts, floods and other events that reduce yields.

Helping farmers when they need help — and reducing second helpings from the federal farm trough such as direct payments — should be the foundation of farm policy.

But, the proposal developed by the House Agriculture Committee and embraced by many Democratic leaders would provide unlimited subsidies to 99.9 percent of America's farmers, regardless of need. The means test proposed by Chairman Peterson would deny subsidies to roughly 3,000 farm owners and operators — out of 1.6 million.

What's more, the Peterson proposal would renew "direct" subsidy payments — which were created to wean farmers off subsidies but have been an entitlement  — for a third time and would raise price supports for many program crops.

The safety net proposed by House reformers like Reps. Ron Kind and Paul Ryan, by contrast, would provide farmers a safety net, not a security blanket.

Their Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment would reform the farm safety net to be linked to farm revenue, not prices, and to set price supports below the market average. Their proposal, developed by USDA and endorsed in concept by many farm organizations would help farmers when they need help in times of low prices and low yields. Price supports would be subject an annual cap of $250,000 per person, and farmers with net farm income of more than $250,00 would be denied any support.

The centerpiece of the Fairness amendment is gradually reducing direct payments.

As the Ruminant has noted before, direct payments were supposed to be the methadone, not the heroin. Under the Fairness amendment, direct payments would be reduced by $10.4 billion over five years to help meet urgent priorities, including more funds for food stamps, conservation, and rural development. Americans represented by nearly 350 members of the House would fare better of the Fairness amendment is adopted.

Most of our farmers are ask comfortable with a spreadsheet as they are spreading manure. We a safety net as modern as they are.

The House Agriculture Committee would allow 99.9% of America's farmers to collect unlimited subsidies and turn away two of of three family farmers offering to share the cost of a healthy environment.

Is that reform?

The Washington Post doesn't think so.

Unless we reward farmers when they offer to share the cost of stewardship, we can't hope to meet some of the nation's biggest environmental challenges. Unfortunately, if the House fails to amend the Farm Bill that will be brought to the floor this week, two out of three farmers will still be turned away when they offer to share the cost of a healthier environment with USDA because of our misplaced spending priorities.

Helping farmers when they help the environment would also help many more farmers and states receive a fair share of farm and food spending.

Current farm and food policies are unfair

Less than 40 percent of farmers grow crops that are eligible for subsidies, and the largest 10 percent of those farmers receive two-thirds of the payments. Overall, most farmers receive no benefit or less than $125 a month from farm subsidies that cost more than $20 billion in some years. Because payments are concentrated in so few hands, half of all farm spending flows to just 20 congressional districts.

This week, the House will debate the 2007 Farm Bill and consider the "Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment," which would reduce and restructure subsidies to help reward — not reject — farmers when they take steps to help the environment. In particular, the amendment will provide a better safety net for family farmers and will do much more to help meet our hunger, health and environmental challenges.

Real reformers will be fair to family farmers and support the Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment.

When Speaker Nancy Pelosi accepted the gavel in January, she called for the creation of a new America. "The American people also spoke clearly for a new direction here at home - they desire a new vision, a new America, built on the values that made our country great," including fairness.

Unfortunately, the Farm Bill delivered by the House Agriculture Committee is far less than fair:

• More than half of all farm spending will continue to flow to just 20 congressional districts.
• Millions of hungry kids will continue to go to bed without knowing the source of their next meal.
• Thousands of family farmers offering to share the cost of a healthy environment will continue to be turned away.
• Thousands more family farmers will be driven off the land by larger neighbors now able to collect unlimited farm subsidies.
• Subsistence farmers in the developing world will be pushed closer to ruin by subsidies that drive down global cotton prices.
• Black and Latino farmers will continue to lack adequate access to farm programs from which they have long been excluded.
• Fruit and vegetable farmers will receive a small slice — but not nearly a fair share — of federal farm spending pie.

Fortunately, a bipartisan group of legislators will offer an amendment this week to bring fairness to farm and food policies.

The "Fairness in Farm and Food Policy" amendment will reduce and restructure depression-era subsidies to help more farmers and to help meet America's urgent health, hunger and environmental priorities.

In particular, the amendment replaces depression-era price guarantees with a modern revenue-based safety net developed by USDA experts that better protects family farmers from declines in crop prices and crop yields.

The amendment also denies subsidies to large commercial farmers with average annual adjusted gross income greater than $500,000 and limit annual subsidies to $250,000 per person.

Finally, the amendment gradually reduces direct payments, which were created to wean farmers off subsidies in 1996 but which have become an entitlement program that will cost more than $26 billion over the next five years. The "fairness" floor amendment will include major new investments, including:

More Domestic Hunger Assistance – The fairness amendment will increase hunger assistance by at least $5.4 billion over five years to feed more deserving people, especially hungry children and seniors.

Reward Stewardship – The fairness amendment increases voluntary stewardship incentives by $3 billion over five years above the Committee's proposal, including more funds to share the cost of clean water and wildlife habitat and for the preservation of open spaces.

Promote Healthy Food Choices – The amendment increases by $1.2 billion over five years resources to fund healthy food choices, including more fresh fruits and vegetables for school children and more farmers markets.

Support For Our Fruit and Vegetable Producers – To fairly address the needs of all producers, the amendment expands programs to more equitably support our fruit and vegetable producers by $1 billion above the Agriculture Committee’s investment, including research and grant programs.

Support For Our Minority Farmers – The amendment provides $500 million over five years above the Committee’s proposal and makes overdue changes which will make USDA programs more accessible to minority farmers.

Boosts Rural Prosperity – The amendment will boost rural prosperity by providing $200 million more than the Committee invests over five years in grants and loans for the development of new rural enterprises.

Reduces the Deficit by $10 billion – The amendment would reduce the deficit by $2 billion over five years and by roughly $10 billion over 10 years.

Expands School Lunches Overseas – The amendment increases by $1.1 billion over five years the McGovern-Dole program to provide school lunches to hungry children in developing countries.

By denying subsidies to some millionaires but allowing unlimited subsidies to those farm families annually earning less than $2 million, the House Agriculture Committee took one step forward and two steps back.

Farm and food policies that are fair — and that measure up to the Speaker's vision for a new America — would not provide unlimited farm subsidies to wealthy farmers and deny food and farm assistance to the hungry and to small family farmers. Farm and food policies that are fair would restucture and reduce our outdated subsidies — especially direct payments linked to past production — to help meet America's urgent hunger, health and environmental priorities.

The Farm Bill passed yesterday by the House Agriculture Committee falls far short of what's needed to reward farmers and ranchers when they take steps to the help the environment.

Farmers manage 70 percent of the landscape, so we can't solve some of the nation's biggest environmental challenges unless we reward — not reject — farmers when they offer to share the cost of clean water and wildlife habitat. Unfortunately, USDA would continue to turn away two-out-of-three farmers when they offer to share the cost of a healthier environment.

The bill would increase funding for voluntary USDA conservation programs by just $3 billion over five years — far less than proposals by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and more than 220 members of House.

The conservation provisions of the Peterson package is even less ambitious than the proposal by the Bush Administration!

In particular, the proposal shortchanges the Grasslands Reserve Program, a voluntary program designed to protect our grasslands from conversion to corn and condos.

Rising corn prices driven by the federal ethanol mandate have made it economically feasible to convert pasture and rangelands to grow corn, posing major new environmental challenges. The loss of grasslands will threaten hundreds of species and increase the use of water and farm chemicals. The "marginal" lands that are being converted in response to the ethanol mandate are far more likely to leak fertilizers into our rivers and bays and to host endangered species.

Expansion of the GRP would have been the thoughlful response to one of the unintended consequences of the biofuels boom. Unfortunately, the committee's proposal would provide only $48 million a year for the GRP, which has the largest program backlog in the nation.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made expansion of the Grasslands Reserve Program a personal priority. Expanding the program to protect 5 million acres would cost about $200 million a year — which could be easily generated by reducing the direct payment rate on corn by just two cents a bushel.

As the Ruminant has noted, direct payments were created to wean farmers off subsidies and are hard to justify in a time of high crop prices. But, the Committee would sign up farmers for these "transition" payments for a third time.

Speaker Pelosi should work with Chairman Peterson to make needed cuts to direct payments to address the nation's environmental challenges before the Farm Bill reaches the floor next week.

By including a means test in the 2007 Farm Bill, the House Agriculture Committee has started an important and long overdue debate over which farmers are truly in need of federal subsidies.

The income of an average farm household in almost twice that of an average American household, and the large commercial farms that collect the lion's share of farm subsidies report household incomes greater than $250,000 a year.

What's more, every other measure of farm wealth — net farm income, net cash returns, debt-to-equity ratios — show that most farmers have not only joined the middle class but have joined the investor class. Even many small farmers report net worth far greater than most Americans.

According to USDA:

• Average farm household income is more than $80,000 a year.
• Average farm household income for our largest commercial farms is more than $270,000 a year.
• The net worth of our largest commercial farms is, on average, more than $2.2 million.
• Farm household net worth is roughly five times as great as the net worth of the average American household.
• More than 80 percent of farm household income comes from sources of the farm.

Undre current law, farmers with adjusted gross income greater than $2.5 million can not collect subsidies. To calculate "adjusted" gross income, farmers are permitted to deduct more than 20 categories of expenses, ranging from farm expenses to health insurance costs. The Bush Administration has proposed to deny subsidies to a farmer whose average AGI is more than $200,000.

Yesterday, the House Agriculture Committee proposed to deny subsidies to a farmer with an average AGI of more than $1 million and to a farmer with an average AGI of more than $500,000 — unless two-thirds of his income comes from farming.

It's important to be sure that all income is captured by a means test, including investment income from ethanol plants and other rural enterprises. Excluding investment income would be like measuring the wealth of Warren Buffett without considering all those Berkshire Hathaway stocks.

Committee Chairman Collin Peterson deserves credit for putting means testing back on the table. Now, the Committee and the Congress need to go much further if they hope to avoid a brutal battle on the House floor.

In particular, the Committee must work with Speaker Pelosi and House reformers to craft a means test that fairly reflects the means of our largest and most successful farmers. What's more, payment limits should be lowered and loopholes should be eliminated once and for all. And, in light of growing wealth in agriculture, the Commitee should work with House reformers to craft risk management tools that allow farmers to manage the ups and downs of agriculture on their own.

Our farmers are as comfortable with a spreadsheet as they are spreading manure. We need a farm "safety net" as modern and entrepreneurial as they are.